|Photo: Colin Kinner http://goo.gl/Yyprm2|
Rather than explaining the myriad of reasons why any measure of concession of privilege to the state is impractical, inefficient, and wholly immoral, I will merely present 5 conversational questions that, when logic is followed, will have a statist's world crash down around them. Hopefully to build upon a new foundation of truth and humanity:
1. Is it ever OK to threaten or kill someone for any other reason than self-defense?
The answer is obviously no. If not, then you might want to re-evaluate your relationship with this person. That notwithstanding, this is an easy follow into destroying the perceived altruism of truly pernicious state actions such as war, taxation, licensure, trade sanctions, zoning, etc. etc.
2. We must go to one of these places right now, which one? Walmart or DMV?
Comparing the two most widely visited places both in the private and in the public sector can have a huge impact on someone willing to turn over their healthcare or children's education to the state. Even though Walmart has its shortcomings and certainly aggressive behavior itself (clearly because of the state largess granted it), it has never and can never compare with the torturous DMV experience in any metropolitan area. The manner of efficiencies and conveniences built into each weighs heavily in the private sector's favor in this example.
3. Are there too many humans on Earth?
If yes, then you might suggest they volunteer themselves and their families to be the first to go. If no, then there is hope for this person and you are not wasting your time continuing to engage them in reasoned discussion.
4. Who pays the cops? Who pays the judges?
The answer to both is the state. And with funds stolen from a population subjugated by force to their control! Classic follow the money, and when we have no justice, we have no peace. Here I like to then segue into the private court/enforcement theory, really just expand their thought process to possibilities they likely never even tossed around.
5. Why would we allow someone to kill others with immunity only for claiming it was done in your best interest, albeit without your consent or willing participation? How is this different from war between states?
Ending other humans' lives in a libertarian's name is especially offensive. We universally reject the use of force. But normally we are referring to kidnapping and caging by costumed thugs. When taking the conversation to robots dropping fire on whole apartment complexes in our names, it is OK to take an especially indignant stance with this one.
Have you had any particular approaches allow you to reach an unquestioning statist? Feel free to add what has opened up the conversation for you below.